Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

reply to post by Aleister


Yes. This debate all boils down to civil rights. Equality under the laws of our civil structure. Businesses are a part of our civil structure, therefore businesses cannot discriminate against someone because of race, religion, gender, or in some states - sexual orientation.

As long as a man and woman are U.S. citizens and of legal age, they can get a marriage license, regardless of the reason for their marriage - no questions asked. It doesn't matter what their religion is, or if they are atheists. It doesn't matter what their skin color is. It doesn't matter if they can't have children, or if they absolutely have no desire to have children. We don't ask those kinds of questions before handing out a marriage license. If we don't ask those kinds of questions, then it shouldn't matter if the couple is a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman. Frankly, it's no one's business, as long as they follow the other requirements for getting a marriage license. Being able or willing to reproduce is NOT one of those requirements.

If someone has the personal opinion that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy, then that person is free to not be a homosexual. Simply being homosexual does not take away anyone else's rights. I personally think that it's unnatural and unhealthy for someone to marry another strictly for their money, but hey, it's none of my business what others do, and I am free to refuse to marry for money if I so choose.

Gryphon66
Focusing on the inequity of individuals is the cornerstone of every totalitarian political system.

That is a logical fallacy.

Just becayse all totalitarian systems focus on the inequality of people, it does not follow that an unequal society must be totalitarian.

There is nothing unfair in treating homosexuals different to heterosexuals when homosexuality is against both the natures of life and of the sexes as I have set out.

Fortunately, logical fallacies are not merely in the eye of the beholder, logic is logic. The logic is sound.

Equal protection before the law applies to American citizens universally. That is the essence of the system.

The equality, again, is a descriptor of the system itself, not the individuals it applies to.

Splitting a larger group homogenous group (American citizens) arbitrarily (into hetero- and homosexuals) merely fosters an irrational argument. It is a specious move designed to create a weaker argument to dissemble.

US equal protection before the law does not derive from sexuality (difference) but from citizenship (unity).

It is, as clearly demonstrated, the fundamental concept in the American system.

Gryphon66

Splitting a larger group homogenous group (American citizens) arbitrarily (into hetero- and homosexuals) merely fosters an irrational argument. It is a specious move designed to create a weaker argument to dissemble.

This is key to your error.

It is not arbitrary to split a citizenry into hetero and homosexuals. The distinction is fundamental; one is in-keeping with the very nature of life and the sexes, the other is by its very nature set against both. The make marriage to be about something that runs contrary to the nature of life and the sexes is nonsensical.

Read the item that I linked to (although I expect, as is so often the case today, your position is based upon belief in an ideology rather than reason, and will be unaccepting of it).

reply to post by Inkyfingers


None of that pertains to already settled law. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has allowed gay marriages to be performed and to continue, and it has said that states can choose to allow gays to marry. So if it is natural, unnatural, or it's just a hobby is no longer relevant to the legal question. Two women can get married in a cornfield in Iowa now (pay for it and they will come), with Eddie Cicotte as their best man, and everyone in Iowa has to legally accept them as married. An Iowian can look at them and think or say that's it's not natural, but that doesn't alter their legal status.

reply to post by Aleister


Laws can be undone...

In the US, once again, the essence of the nature of the government, legal system and general political philosophy is that we DO NOT split up our citizens according to whimsical divisions suitable to a particular argument, personal belief, or ideology.

That is, indeed, the very definition of the word arbitrary. Word meanings cannot be twisted to fit a particular argument.

That a distinction CAN BE MADE does not imply in any sense that it SHOULD BE MADE. That is the essence of right action.

There is no logical reason to split a population into different sexual preferences any more than by race, religion or any other again "arbitrary" measure. The split is arbitrary because it has been repeatedly argued and proven in this country that those difference do not detract from the basic concepts of American justice. Those distinctions, which certainly can be made, that are not reasonable, important, rational, logical or equitable contribute nothing to a productive system of government.

Im sorry to go a tad off topic here.
[ Rant ]

But may I just say that some of the replies on this thread are extremely homophobic and offensive to read, the worst part is these people say "I didnt mean to offend" then carry on with their hate speech disguised as "fact".

Simple things to straighten out here:

1. Its not a choice, its life. People who think its a choice are highly misguided and narrow minded
2. No, gay couples cannot reproduce together, but... they can adopt which I have seen happen where I live which has given children a loving home, how is that going against nature? Picking up after one set of parents couldnt cope?
3. The "not in my state" argument against gay marriage and how its not moral... how is you judging another human because of they way they are moral? Guess what, you might not know it, you may not like it but there are plenty of gay people in every city in the world. Its small minded people that cause so much hate which scares people into being honest with themselves.

You..should..be..ashamed.
[ / Rant ]

Gryphon66
In the US, once again, the essence of the nature of the government, legal system and general political philosophy is that we DO NOT split up our citizens according to whimsical divisions suitable to a particular argument, personal belief, or ideology.

That is, indeed, the very definition of the word arbitrary. Word meanings cannot be twisted to fit a particular argument.

That a distinction CAN BE MADE does not imply in any sense that it SHOULD BE MADE. That is the essence of right action.

There is no logical reason to split a population into different sexual preferences any more than by race, religion or any other again "arbitrary" measure. The split is arbitrary because it has been repeatedly argued and proven in this country that those difference do not detract from the basic concepts of American justice. Those distinctions, which certainly can be made, that are not reasonable, important, rational, logical or equitable contribute nothing to a productive system of government.

Differentiation by sexuality is not arbitrary, and your insistence to the contrary does not change that.

reply to post by Inkyfingers

But the discussion is based on the points of the law, and legislature. And unfortunately there is legal precedents behind the law, that states exactly that. If you look back in history and there is a whole lot of such, take a look at how the USA has treated those who were perceived as different and the laws that applied to them. It goes back years, and it all starts with the fear of a difference in people, and then the laws are enacted to keep them separate from the rest of society, yet the ideal of equal, but that never is the case.

Look at the Native Americans, we separated them, from the rest of society, that even today they keep separated, living on reservations. Then there were the Chinese, and the Irish, the Polish, the Jewish, and the list keeps going. How was the south before the civil rights movement? After all the belief then was separate but equal, and yet it was not, and it was a form of legalized discrimination.

You state that non heterosexuality run contrary to the nature of life and sexes, but offer no proof on such, and ultimately if it is not natural then why does it exist in the first place? If you ask many homosexual persons, they did not wake up and choose to be such, most were born to be such, seeing themselves as such, even when they had no contact with such. So how does a person who has no contact with homosexuals what so ever, no concept of such, how do they become such unless they were born as such?

And based off of the article/blog that you provided, there are a few questions that are not answered, and should be asked.

What about people who are sterile, are their marriages now considered invalid as they cannot have children? And what of older people who choose to marry and produce no offspring, what of their marriages, do we now tell them that they cannot get married all cause there will be no product of such?

And would you discount the works of Kinsey, Klein and Storms, which were able to prove that homosexuality was normal, using laboratory conditions and scientific proof, rather than just personal bias, removing all external factors, and show interesting results as a result on their studies and work?

A homosexual can produce offspring through biological channels, just as a heterosexual can.

A homosexual couple can provide a stable home environment for children, just as heterosexual couples can.

Homosexuals can be just as committed to the sanctity of marriage just as heterosexuals can.

(Hopefully much more so since the divorce rate is around 50% for first marriages and higher than that for subsequent ones.) That is, of course, if homosexuals were allowed to marry universally rather than being discriminated against because of their gender.

The sexual activities of homosexuals and heterosexuals are exactly the same: same body parts put in the same places for the same reasons.

Homosexuals have jobs, contribute to their communities, their churches, their local economy ... just as heterosexuals do.

In short, there is absolutely zero rational justification to discriminate against homosexuals, and no reason to separate citizens into homo and hetero.

That lack of rational justification MAKES any such distinction arbitrary, by all definition, logic, reason, equitability, etc. etc. etc.

FINIS

sdcigarpig

What about people who are sterile, are their marriages now considered invalid as they cannot have children? And what of older people who choose to marry and produce no offspring, what of their marriages, do we now tell them that they cannot get married all cause there will be no product of such?

You won't get a good answer on this question, because they know it invalidates their whole argument. Oh, they'll give you some silly answer, like "well, two heterosexuals "could" procreate if their organs were working right, but two homosexuals can never procreate with each other." What difference does it make WHY no procreation will be happening - either marriage is strictly for having children and should be legislated as such, or people should be free to marry regardless of whether they are able/willing to procreate. In America, getting a marriage license is not predicated on the ability to procreate. It just isn't. So, using that as the excuse for not allowing gay marriage is simply bogus.

reply to post by kaylaluv


But it's actually the only argument left, and no, it isn't even on legal radar. American judges will overturn all anti-gay marriage bans in short order, and I think everyone on this thread knows that (even if they won't admit it). There are no legal arguments left, and that's why Justice Scalia stood up at the Supreme Court and expressed his disgust at last year's reading of the ruling. He knew what it meant.

Gryphon66
A homosexual can produce offspring through biological channels, just as a heterosexual can.

A homosexual couple can provide a stable home environment for children, just as heterosexual couples can.

Homosexuals can be just as committed to the sanctity of marriage just as heterosexuals can.

(Hopefully much more so since the divorce rate is around 50% for first marriages and higher than that for subsequent ones.) That is, of course, if homosexuals were allowed to marry universally rather than being discriminated against because of their gender.

The sexual activities of homosexuals and heterosexuals are exactly the same: same body parts put in the same places for the same reasons.

Homosexuals have jobs, contribute to their communities, their churches, their local economy ... just as heterosexuals do.

In short, there is absolutely zero rational justification to discriminate against homosexuals, and no reason to separate citizens into homo and hetero.

That lack of rational justification MAKES any such distinction arbitrary, by all definition, logic, reason, equitability, etc. etc. etc.

FINIS

edit on 9Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:54:46 -060014p092014166 by Gryphon66 because: Removed silly ratio

Except for the fact that, as I said, homosexuality is intrinsically set against the nature life and the sexes. To suggest that this is normal in any way, and that differentiation on the basis of it is 'arbitrary', is nonsense. You cannot treat as the same two sexualities, one of which is in sync with the very nature of life itself and the sexes, the other of which is intrinsically set against those things. The very idea is ludicrous, and it is only getting pushed by an agenda that puts ideology before reason.

Messed up edit

sdcigarpig

But the discussion is based on the points of the law, and legislature.

And laws have been made and undone before. This law is based on a ludicrous position, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are somehow equal when they are not.

You state that non heterosexuality run contrary to the nature of life and sexes, but offer no proof on such

I have shown several times how it does.

if it is not natural then why does it exist in the first place?

I have not said that it is "not natural". I have said that it goes against the nature of life and the sexes. You are aware, are you not, of the difference between "Nature" (the ecosystem etc) and "nature" (the character of something).

they did not wake up and choose to be such, most were born to be such

Again, I have not said that they DO choose to become such. No wonder that you do not understand the argument. You are ignoring it and inserting your own version.

And based off of the article/blog that you provided, there are a few questions that are not answered, and should be asked.

What about people who are sterile, are their marriages now considered invalid as they cannot have children? And what of older people who choose to marry and produce no offspring, what of their marriages, do we now tell them that they cannot get married all cause there will be no product of such?

The blog article clearly differentiates between homosexuality, which is by its very nature infertile, and infertility caused by "accident, age or illness affecting an organ".

What are you doing trying to engage with this when again and again you show that you have not actually read what has been said?

reply to post by Inkyfingers


Isn't it "nature" for a male and female who partner up to eventually procreate? So, isn't it "going against nature" for a heterosexual married couple who are perfectly capable of procreating, to decide categorically NOT to procreate?

This is such a silly argument! Marriage licenses are a civil matter, given out by the state. Marriage licenses have nothing to do with "nature". There are no marriage licences in nature.

kaylaluv
reply to post by Inkyfingers

 

Isn't it "nature" for a male and female who partner up to eventually procreate? So, isn't it "going against nature" for a heterosexual married couple who are perfectly capable of procreating, to decide categorically NOT to procreate?

This is such a silly argument! Marriage licenses are a civil matter, given out by the state. Marriage licenses have nothing to do with "nature". There are no marriage licences in nature.

Stop inserting strawmen.

It is not about whether it is 'natural' or not. Many things that are 'natural' are unhealthy. Dogs eating their own excrement is 'natural'.

It is about whether the nature OF life itself and the sexes is being stood against or not. Homosexuality is out of sync with both of those things. How can you call something normal when it stands agains the very nature of life itself and the sexes?

The position that homosexuality is "set against" anything is merely an individual judgement; it is not universally true; it is opinion only.

Multiple scientific studies have repeatedly demonstrated that homosexuality naturally occurs in every human population observed to a certain degree. Human history records multiple instances in virtually every culture ever known historically of the presence of what we would term, in modern phrasing, homosexuals. Homosexuality and homosexuals were accepted and even valued in many of these cultures.

Repeatedly deflecting the question at hand to sexual preference is merely illogical. The question regards the right to marriage. There is no way to structure a law that restricts same-sex relationships fairly, equitably or in the long term, legally. Every law that is on the books now that specifies the sex of the participants in the establishment of a civil contract is discriminating unfairly against a certain sex. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Fourteenth Amendment preclude discrimination before the law on the basis of sex.

These laws will be removed and repealed on that basis.

Gryphon66
The position that homosexuality is "set against" anything is merely an individual judgement; it is not universally true; it is opinion only.

Multiple scientific studies have repeatedly demonstrated that homosexuality naturally occurs in every human population observed to a certain degree.

So do schizophrenia and sickle-cell anaemia. Are you suggesting that they too are normal simply because they occur "naturally".

I've told you how homosexuality is set agains the nature of life and the sexes. If you refuse to see that, there is nothing more I can do about it.